Georgealbert

You asked the same question on Saturday. Are you expecting different answers?

Really When was the last time you were in Pattaya? Your own posts show that you are not in Thailand anymore. Seems that your life is just posting many BS posts everyday on this forum, everyday..

Today the Japanese Media reported that a reporter on board of the JAL A359 as a passenger, that the evacuation was mainly completed in about 7 minutes after the collision, the captain subsequently walked through the aircraft and found a number of passengers who had not yet evacuated and prompted them to leave the aircraft. The captain was the last to leave the aircraft 18 minutes after coming to a stop.

Very good question. As the Dash 8 did not have a ADS-B transponder, then tracking previous flights on public software is not giving any results. Military restrictions on pilots hours will be different from commercial pilots, and these set by Japanese Coastguard regulations. The Japanese Coastguard did operate 25 fixed wing aircraft, of which 8 were Dash 8s. I have not seen any details issued on the Dash 8 recent flight hours, or any details, including the experience or names, of the pilots involved, maybe have to wait until the initial report. There may also be a conflict on releasing such information due to the Tokyo Police criminal investigation. Ministry of Transportation reported today that works to clear the runway are under way and the flight data recorder of the JAL A359 was recovered, the CVR has not yet been found. The runway is expected to reopen on 8 January.

Yes it looks obvious, but like most major incidents and emergencies, it is not normally a single event that causes the accident, but a series of minor events that lead up-to it. i believe that all commercial planes are fitted with a ADS-B transponder which would have alerted the JAL to the Dash 8 on the runway, and which also allows websites and apps, like flightradar24 to track the planes. Military aircraft are not required to have this type of transponder fitted. That seems very strange when both are using public airspace and airports. i quote for reference. ADS-B is an acronym for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. It provides a three-dimensional position and identification of aircraft or other vehicles. ADS-B transponders automatically broadcast information about an aircraft, including: Global Positioning System location. Altitude Ground speed. The information is relayed by satellite-linked GPS to air traffic controllers and other aircraft once every second. It’s considered more accurate than conventional radar systems. The ATC message log, looks very clear when printed on paper, but when you listen to the radio recordings, that were released, you can see how easy it would be to misunderstand or not correctly hear a message. it also seems that ATC /Tower could communicate on 118.725MHz with planes landing and on 124.350MHz with planes taking off. Both are ATC/Tower frequencies. There is no information saying planes connected to one frequency could hear what was going on on the other. It is common that they can but not always. https://youtu.be/lLMj1BnmNFA?si=3H-N3wQNgjSFc7Ei

Seen that and some other coverage by Japanese TV, and even without translation you can follow the discussion. The dash 8 wreckage was removed yesterday and it was planned to start removing the JAL wreckage today, so I assume all 4 black (orange in real life) boxes have been recovered, but have only seen reports of the investigation confirming recovery of the ones from the Dash 8. I think this incident is interesting, as so much data, video, pictures, recordings and information is available in the public domain, you can assemble you own basic investigation, and cross check it with other data, without having to guess, too much. The initial report will be interesting, and should be released in English, but maybe delayed because of the side by side Tokyo Police criminal investigation. Found this comparison of the A350 and Dash 8

The problem is just not restricted to BYD. From the same youtube posters, this video seems to imply safety standards in China, are a as most expect. The push for profits seems to have no limits, just beware of what you buy or drive.

Sorry but this is a bit dated, as not had to use the service for almost 2 years. The mini bus then to Ban Laem border, left from the market, behind Robinsons, Chantaburi. Some info in this old thread below, but may have all changed, sorry. The last time I got the mini bus from pattaya it dropped everyone off near the LoTus’s, on the way into Chantaburi.

Agree with your post, but will add that the area you have circled, is only the start of the landing zone, which then extends further down the runway.(See pic below.) reference FAA Aeronautical Information Manual section 3, 2-3- 3 e (effective from 5 October 2023). . Captain Monday is a pilot, so would be good to hear his personnel views on this. From the next morning overhead picture, it appears that the coastguard plane was pushed or dragged a short distance, finishing and burning at C6, next runway entry point. I believe that the JAL aircraft, was still in a nose up position, either on the ground or landing, when the collision occurred, which would account for the limited nose damage, loss of front landing gear and underside damage to the belly of the aircraft. There is unverified video footage from a passenger on another plane on the taxiway, which shows the JAL plane touch down just behind the coastguard plane’s position (coastguard plane can not be seen in video) and then a fireball. I will not post that until I have seen it verified as real. It is also reported that a Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) message was issued on Dec. 27 to alert pilots to the fact that the warning lights that alert pilots to an open runway were not working at Haneda Airport, at the time of the accident. It remains unclear whether the lack of these warning lights on the runway played a role in accident. Copy of NOTAM below.

No according to the reports. https://www.newsdirectory3.com/2024-new-years-eve-free-highways-cabinet-approves-toll-exemption-on-bangkok-pattaya-and-bangkok-outer-ring-road-for-7-days/

This is one link to the original CCTV, showing time and date stamp. This is the CCTV footage from the airport itself, that has been used by every news source. The video I posted above is a zoomed version.

Double post.

Sorry, think you misunderstood my post, I state yes the coastguard aircraft is on the ground, in the CCTV you see it go past its stop point at C5 (in ATC messages) and wait for ATC clearance for takeoff, which it never got. The JAL aircraft can be seen landing near or on top of the waiting/stopped coastguard aircraft. The video is a recording from the live CCTV feed, and has been lightened and zoomed in. The current live cam below. The coastguard aircraft is currently being removed, other airport live CCTV

Read this report on an aircraft investigation site. The reports are from the two ongoing investigations, 1. By JTSB, (supported by team from France (airbus), Uk (Rolls Royce) Canada (Dash 8), air accident safety investigation. 2. Tokyo's Metropolitan Police who opened an investigation for professional negligence ‘On Jan 4th 2024 the JAL reported that actually 15 passengers needed medical attention. There were three pilots in the cockpit, none of them was able to see the DH8C, therefore a go around was never considered. After the aircraft came to a stop the cockpit crew was not aware of any fire, however, flight attendants reported fire from the aircraft. The purser went to the cockpit and reported the fire and received instruction to evacuate. Evacuation thus began with the two front exits (left and right) closest to the cockpit. Of the other 6 emergency exits 5 were already in fire, only the left aft exit was still usable. The Intercom malfunctioned, communication from the aft aircraft with the cockpit was thus impossible. As result the aft flight attendants gave up receiving instructions from the cockpit and opened the emergency exit on their own initiative. On Jan 4th 2024 Japan's Ministry of Transport stated that it appears the tower controller was not aware of the Coast Guard DH8C on the runway. The pilots of the A359 did not see the DH8C and are currently being interviewed by the JTSB. On Jan 4th 2024 Tokyo's Metropolitan Police reported in an interview with them the captain of the DH8C stated that suddenly a fire started in the back of or behind the aircraft. The Police is investigating whether the captain was aware there had been a collision with the passenger aircraft.’ Seems the pilots never saw the coastguard plane, either before and during landing, so would seem to have landed on or just behind the parked aircraft. Enhanced CCTV seems to show this also. 489115371442536501.mp4

Can not see how it was a radio issue, JA722A repeated the message back to ATC, at 17.45.19 ‘Taxi to holding point C5 JA722A No1, Thank you’, which was their last transmission, quoted from the Ministry of Transportation translated ATC messages. (Unless you think that is not a reliable source also). Sorry, but do you really think that bias does not exist in all countries? Can you point out anything wrong with the BBC reports? Have a look at the freedom of press report on Japan below. https://rsf.org/en/country/japan

Appears that the captain of the coastguard plane has said to investigators that he was given permission to enter the runway. This is not shown in the Ministry of Transportation, released translation of ATC messages. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/police-probe-possible-negligence-tokyo-runway-collision-2024-01-03/

If I remember correctly, the last time I used them, the mini bus left 2 hourly, starting at 06.00 until 16.00, but that was about 18 months ago, so may have changed. If you call them, I would get a Thai to do it for you, as their had very little English when I used them. Trip was about 3 and half hours, with a toilet break half way at Klaeng..

Have used the mini bus that operates from behind Numchai, on Sukhumvi, a few times. Always found the driving was OK, no excessive speeding, that may have just been my luck. https://maps.app.goo.gl/UBNzdDwLvsPxoK9G9?g_st=ic

Yes never cleared to enter the runway. This is the transcript released by Ministry of Transportation. JA722A told to taxi and hold at C5.

It is not often i agree with you, but you are not far off with this comment. Mixed culture relationships are always going to difficult, but starting from an online only relationship, could spell trouble. Not all expat/thai relationships are bad, I know many successful and happy couples, but they took time to develop, not jumping in feet first.

No I fully agree with you, it is in a very strange and dangerous position. My experience here counts for nothing, I was never ARFF certified, but I would never put myself or a team member in that position, unless there was a life safety/protection need. Emirates flight 521, in 2016, killed a firefighter when an explosion occurred as the flames had reached the centre fuel tank, that was a Boeing 777, in similar circumstances, but this was after a very hard landing. Not only are they exposed to the fuel, they are exposed to heated tyres, which can violently exploded, even if deflated, from pryrolysis building up inside the tyre, plus the brake would have been hot, and do not like cool water or foam on them. It would appear that the team, were from the airport fire team, looking at the equipment in use, and as soon as they are withdrawn the main roof foam monitor is used. Found you comments and others, very interesting, and got the old grey matter in my head working, thanks. I also tend to follow incidents like this, and will be interested in the interim report, which soon be issued quickly, given the accident happened on the ground, and the black boxes, should have survived both fires. The finally positions of both aircrafts, in picture below, seems to indicate the coastguard plane was entering the runway, and burnt on the runway. I also see the Ministry of Transport at a press conference, said it was unclear if the JAL had permission to land, this will be in the air traffic control data and recordings. I know it is not good to speculate until the investigation has been done, but you cannot help human nature.

The collision caused a leak of fuel and the planes are seen in a massive fireball during the landing, which aircraft that burning fuel is from is not clear, but probably both aircraft. The extent of fire and actions of the initial fire appliances is difficult to assess, as I cannot find an unedited video sequence from impact to full evacuation. The video below shows the Dash 8 burning after the imoact. The cabin is starting to fill with smoke (pic below), so the smooth evacuation has to be down to the professional conduct of the JAL crew and possibly the disciplined cultural response from the passengers. The nose of the JAL plane has been damaged (pic below), but I don't believe it could not have slammed into the back of the Dash 8, as that would have destroyed both planes, as approach speed of A350, is about 269 km/hr, from ICAO category D aircraft at runway threshold, and FAA circular 150/5300 - 13A. The A350 seems to have lost the nose landing gear during the landing, with most of the visible damage to the under belly of the aircraft., with both wings and engine not ripped off, location of A350 fuel tanks are in this area.(pic below) The investigation report, will determine the sequence of events, and an initial report issued maybe within a week ir so.

My comments are only a best educated guess, and is difficult from the footage. When applying foam, there are 3 methods, rain down, bounce back or splash in, (layman terms) The firefighters may be applying foam to the fuselage to allow to fall down to onto the foam blanket, so he does not damage the foam already applied, so no ignition of any vapours. Yes agree is looks highly dangerous, but the airport will have prepared plans for all incidents, based on aircraft type, location on airport, weather and wind conditions, which would have determined the tactics, monitors and hand-lines placement. Any variation from these plans would require a dynamic risk assessment, from incident commander. I believe they had not confirmed everyone had been evacuated at that stage. I will state that in a past life, before Thailand, I have attend many UK airports incidents, including Heathrow, but I was never ARFF ( airport rescue and firefighting) accredited. In the UK, local authority fire service role is to back up the airport fire teams. The Airport Fire Chief would be in charge of deployment and placement of appliances and equipment and tactics involved. So my comments are still a best guess from footage I have seen. i also believe the JAL plane may have landed on top of the coastguard aircraft, from the damage under the aircraft, and the footage of the fire under the aircraft, from airport CCTV and passengers phones.

My link above is from the airport web cam, showing what I believe is the coastguard aircraft. It is still live by the tine stamp.

Having watched that footages, seems there are 2 firefighters using hand lines, one either side of the wing. My only guess, at what seems to be a strange deployment, is that they are trying to lay a foam blanket under that point of the aircraft, to protect the escape chutes. Very risky place to be. Maybe there is a pool of fuel or large leak. Seems to be a lot of foam already on the tarmac. I believe their also may having been waiting confirmation that evacuation was completed, then withdrew the hand lines and the main roof foam monitor was used.